5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Budapest.
6.  On 17 January 2007 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant, then employed as a security guard, and his alleged accomplices. They were charged with aggravated extortion, endorsement of and profiteering from prostitution and other offences. The applicant, when he learned that the police had been looking for him, presented himself at the police station on his own initiative.
7.  On 18 January 2007 the prosecution filed a motion for his pre-trial detention. The risks of absconding, repetition of crime and collusion were referred to.
8.  On 19 January 2007 the Pest Central District Court ordered the detention. Only the last-mentioned reason was retained, since the court held that – in the face of the applicant’s settled family life, legal income and the fact that he had no previous convictions – the impending severe sanction was insufficient reason for assuming that he might abscond and, moreover, that the continuous nature of the offence he was charged with did not necessarily entail the risk of repetition of crime.
9.  On 1 February 2007 the Budapest Regional Court upheld the measure, retaining all the reasons proposed by the prosecution. The Regional Court observed that the applicant had no legal income, his personal situation was unknown and one of his accomplices had absconded.
10.  The applicant’s detention was then repeatedly prolonged at the statutory intervals on the basis of the risk of collusion and intimidation of witnesses. In particular, it was pointed out by the courts that there were elements in the investigation file according to which the applicant and his associate had attempted to influence some witnesses and that a summons sent to a witness – who had subsequently withdrawn his testimony – had been seized by the police from one of the defendants in the case.
11.  On 4 May 2007 the defence proposed, to no avail, that the detention be substituted with a less stringent measure, since at this late stage of the proceedings the risk of collusion was no longer relevant. On 7 May 2007 the applicant’s lawyer complained that no evidence was accessible to him from the prosecution’s side underlying the risk of the applicant’s intimidating the witnesses. On 31 May 2007 the applicant filed another motion, again unsuccessfully, pointing out that the risk of collusion was not substantiated by any evidence known to him. A similar complaint was made in vain on 13 September 2007.
12.  Another prolongation order issued meanwhile, on 12 September 2007, was based afresh on the risk of repetition of crime, in addition to that of absconding. On appeal, the former reason was discarded but the latter retained, with the reasoning that although the investigation had been terminated, the organised nature of the crime with which the accused were charged and their attitude towards the witnesses necessitated the continued detention.
13.  On 17 October 2007 a bill of indictment was preferred.
14.  On 19 October 2007 the detention was prolonged because of the risk of absconding and collusion. The applicant appealed, arguing that nothing indicated that he would abscond in the face of his settled background, and that no elements communicated to him by the authorities would allude to any real risk of collusion.
On 28 November 2007 the appeal was rejected but the risk of collusion was not maintained.
15.  At the first court hearing, on 18 December 2007 one of the accomplices was released on bail. However, the same was refused in respect of the applicant. The court pointed out that the proposed bail did not secure the applicant’s availability for justice in view of the impending severe sanction.
16.  A further motion with a view to release on bail was decided on 19 February 2008. The applicant’s detention was maintained, because of the risk of absconding, given the seriousness of the charges. His appeal and further requests for release on bail or the application of less stringent coercion were to no avail. The trial court made repeated references to the risk of absconding in the face of the potential severe sanction.
17.  Finally, on 10 December 2008 the applicant was released but was prohibited from leaving his domicile.